Debating capital punishment in Colorado (7 letters)

A common argument in favor of the death penalty is that the people to be executed “are very bad people,” or as Greg Dobbs said in his opinion piece, “scum” (“No: State inmates convicted of murder deserve their fates”). As a prosecutor, I think this argument misses the point.

Prosecutors routinely deal with very bad people who have done unspeakable things to others. The question is not whether they are bad, or even deserving of execution. Rather, it’s whether a system can be devised to execute only those who truly deserve death: an efficient, practical, consistent system that is not improperly influenced by factors like race and doesn’t create collateral problems. In other words: the perfect application of the death penalty as punishment.

Our history has shown that such an infallible system, because it’s designed by human beings, is not possible. As Justice Harry Blackmun noted, trying to get the death penalty procedure exactly right is “tinkering with the machinery of death.” It is a hopeless exercise and unseemly for a civilized society. Our legislature has better things to do.

Stan Garnett, District Attorney, Boulder County

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Kudos to Greg Dobbs. Like him, I am nauseated every time I open my Denver Post to see Nathan Dunlap laughing at me because he is still manipulating the system after 20 years. It is long past time for that human filth to man up and take the punishment the court ordered. The punishment he earned. The punishment he well deserves. The death penalty is not only fair, it is 100 percent effective. I have never heard of an executed murderer going on to murder again. I hope Gov. John Hickenlooper ignores any bleeding-heart pleas for the “mercy” that Dunlap didn’t show for his victims.

Rich Graham, Longmont

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

I read Greg Dobbs’ argument in favor of the death penalty, which he makes in spite of his own acknowledgment that the arguments against it are compelling. He lost me when he claimed that what separates us from the countries that continue this barbaric practice is the thoroughness with which we practice it.

Dobbs assures us that he’s all in favor of snuffing murderers who, I agree, deserve the ultimate penalty we can render for their crimes. He also acknowledges that sometimes mistakes are made, but that’s OK with him. I’m sure Dobbs is, as he stated, now willing to take the risk that someday he’ll be the victim of such a horrible mistake, if only we can continue to put to death those convicted of such crimes. One wonders how he’ll feel about it when he’s on death row, rather than writing a theoretical column from the comfort of Evergreen.

Pete Lister, Greeley

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

Death penalty opponents apparently want to ignore the fact that some of our fellow humans are bad people who do bad things, including killing fellow humans in cold blood for no reason. Those bad people should not be able to take advantage of the kind-hearted people of the world in order to avoid paying an appropriate price for their crimes. As his recent mug shot suggests, Nathan Dunlap is laughing at those of us who think he deserves to live.

Angela Williams (“Yes: Colorado needs another form of punishment”) argues that we do not have the right to take another person’s life. Actually, all American citizens are complicit in the death of innocent civilians on a massive scale — from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Guatemala to Iraq. Like it or not, killing people is something we do frequently and efficiently. It is hard to understand why a convicted murderer like Dunlap should be spared while so many innocent civilians were not.

Steve Laudeman, Denver

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

While considering the point-counterpoint on Colorado’s death penalty, I found myself firmly straddling the line between the pros and cons.

Yes, those who have dealt cruelly with the innocent lives of others deserve our harshest punishment, and 20 years of delay by filing appeal after appeal at an incredible monetary cost is unconscionable when the proof of guilt is absolutely undeniable. The death penalty should be carried out as sentenced within a reasonable period of time. However, since there are those who will deny the court’s decision, we have reached a point where the death penalty has become an intricate societal problem.

Angela Williams’ opinion that Colorado needs another form of punishment deserves a “sound logic and a clear moral judgment.” There indeed should be a middle ground utilized. A life sentence served with 23-hour solitude without the benefits of socialization would be a harsh but just punishment for those who have relinquished their rights to a life spent even in the company of the general prison population.

Jeanne Slade, Morrison

This letter was published in the March 22 edition.

There are many reasons to repeal the death penalty — the length and cost of trial and appeals, its failure to be a deterrent, its failure to restore a family’s loss, the fact that the United States is the only highly developed nation that still has a death penalty, etc.

In my mind, the best argument for repeal is the existence of a valid, less costly alternative — life in prison without the possibility of parole. The only reason for the death penalty when there is such a viable alternative is to exact vengeance, which should not be a state-sponsored rationale. Colorado is a beautiful state with a rich and wonderful heritage, but retaining Wild West ideas of justice should no longer be part of that heritage.

Laurie Schoder, Denver

This letter was published online only.

In Angela Williams’ argument for outlawing the death the penalty in Colorado, we can unfortunately see one of the best examples of the illogical thinking in liberal thought.

On the one hand, Williams states that “the death penalty is an ugly stain,” that the death penalty is “government-sanctioned violence,” and that repealing it is a “clear moral judgment.” But then she goes on, arguing how much more suffering can be inflicted, on murderers like Timothy McVeigh, by seeing them “rotting away in a cell.”

How can Williams claim execution is so abhorrently immoral, then relish what she gleefully acknowledges is a far crueler punishment of life in prison? She’s saying that execution is “too easy,” and therefore apparently too humane. This is emotional absurdity raised to a new level.

Kenneth Valero, Littleton

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I think all the arguments ride, for me, on the fact that our judicial system isn’t perfect and we know that some states (possibly ours also) have executed people innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. Life in prison without the possibility of parole seems to me to be an appropriate response to even the most heinous crime, and then, IF a mistake was made, we can reverse that. Not so the innocent man who was executed.

peterpi

Very nicely put.
“Oops, we made a mistake,” says the judge, the jury foreman, the appeals court justices, to the grave marker.

thor

Looking for a list of everyone executed by mistake. Oops, it doesn’t exist.

peterpi

Try looking harder.
There’s an arson case out of Texas that is causing questions.
There are people who have been exonerated after spending 10, 20, years in prison, and you guys want to make the process faster.

thor

We guys? You do like to lump people. Does that make your argument any better? Anyway, moving on. If someone like Nathan Dunlap, who fits my multiple eye witness, cold-blooded criteria, then he should fry. Not a chance he is innocent.

BJ

eye witness testimony is often one of the worst criteria….and yes, to your comment above, there have been a number of incidents where they have found that an innocent person was executed….or on death row awaiting.

guest

Names?

BJ

Cameron Todd Willingham – 2009 – Texas (of course) is one of the most recent. Or read In Spite of Innocence….research about others. Not that hard to find if you are actually interested.

peterpi

He and thor are not

thor

Didn’t say I wasn’t interested. Just want you to back up your assertions.

peterpi

Wilmington was the one I was thinking of. The New Yorker magazine had an excellent article. He was convicted and sentenced to death, in large part, because of “expert testimony” on differences between deliberately-set fires (arson) and accidentally-set fires.
But! In the early 1990s, a house was condemned and set to be demolished. The house was fairly isolated, so rather than hire a demolition company, the house was refurnished in a typical residential fashion, a lit cigarette was left on a bed (a common cause of house fires), and the house left alone until it was totally engulfed in flames, whereupon the fire dept. put out the fire. Then the arson investigators went to work, and were stunned to discover that several clues and hallmarks thought distinct to arson fires were found in this “accidental” fire.
I believe Willingham went to his deaht professing his innocence, claiming the fire was accidentally set. A lot of people, LEOs, arson investigators, others, now believe him.
But then, the New Yorker is a lefty commie-crriminal-sympathetic, high-brow magazine, so why should real_American conservatives pay any attention to it, right?

thor

It would appear he died due to circumstantial evidence. That would not fit my criteria. But it still comes down to a penalty commensurate to the crime. Why is that a concept that is so hard to fathom?

toohip

“died due to circumstantial evidence?”

reinhold23

I read the New Yorker article, too. If it weren’t for Rick Perry’s direct interference at the last minute of an investigation into the Willingham case, we would have our first admitted case of executing an innocent man. For now, we only have the testimony of experts who reviewed the evidence against Willingham and call it flawed.

Here’s a good quote: “Over the past five years, the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation’s top fire scientists – first for the Tribune, then for the Innocence Project, and now for the commission. All concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson. The only other evidence of significance against Willingham was twice-recanted testimony by another inmate who testified that Willingham had confessed to him. Jailhouse snitches are viewed with skepticism in the justice system, so much so that some jurisdictions have restrictions against their use.”

peterpi

One of the guests mentioned an ex-wife. I dunno if guests get copies of replies.
Do you recall anything from the article about the ex-wife being anywhere the scene of the house fire?
I admit upfront I know nothing about Willingham’s ex-wife, but, from what I’ve read about acrimonious divorces, the exes are perfectly willing to believe the absolute worst of each other, and to use anything against them. So, barring other information, she’s hardly an unimpeachable witness.

reinhold23

She divorced after the accident, and yes, I’m comfortable calling it an accident after reading about it. The wife was out shopping at the time of the fire. I can’t imagine what Willingham went through. To lose one’s children would be horrific. To be blamed unfairly for their deaths is unfathomable.

guest

Why did she say he admitted burning their children and she has said he was guilty of the crime?

reinhold23

It’s worth pointing out that she believed in his innocence for years, and she even wrote to Gov. Ann Richards: “I know him in ways that no one else does when it comes to our children. Therefore, I believe that there is no way he could have possibly committed this crime.”

Here’s the paragraph mentioning her change of heart in the Grann article:

“He asked Stacy if his tombstone could be erected next to their children’s graves. Stacy, who had for so long expressed belief in Willingham’s innocence, had recently taken her first look at the original court records and arson findings. Unaware of Hurst’s report, she had determined that Willingham was guilty. She denied him his wish, later telling a reporter, “He took my kids away from me.”

Don’t know why she said he admitted. At his children’s funeral, he was overheard saying “You’re not the one who was supposed to die,” which was taken as an admission of guilt by some. Others thought it showed he was tormented that they died and he did not.

guest

So you think she made it up that he confessed to her? I know you said you don’t know why she said he admitted it, but either she was telling the truth or she made it up.

reinhold23

Or she interpreted something he said in that way.

She doesn’t say he “confessed to her”. She says he admitted it, which doesn’t have to be directly to her.

reinhold23

Some people seem to think she made it up. From the Wikipedia page:

“Stacy herself told the Fort Worth Star Telegram on October 25, 2009[34] that during a final prison meeting just weeks before he was put to death Willingham admitted setting the fire, as a response to Stacy’s alleged threats of divorce the night before.[35] Journalists familiar with the case noted that Stacy Kuykendall’s statement explicitly contradicted previous comments, legal testimony, and numerous published interviews before and after the execution.[36] This was also noted by Willingham’s prosecutor, who said “It’s hard for me to make heads or tails of anything she said or didn’t say.””

I for one tend to believe what people say closer to an event rather than what they’ve rationalized to themselves over the years.

guest

So you think she made it up.

reinhold23

I do. She never went public with this until five years after his execution? Too weird.

reinhold23

More from those who reviewed the “evidence”:

“In August 2009, eighteen years after the fire and five years after Willingham’s execution, a report conducted by Dr. Craig Beyler, hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case, found that “a finding of arson could not be sustained”. Beyler said that key testimony from a fire marshal at Willingham’s trial was “hardly consistent with a scientific mind-set and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics.”

It seems Willingham’s ex-wife and mother of the children who died in the fire disagrees with you.

“Todd murdered Amber, Karmon and Kameron. He burnt them,” she said. “He admitted he burnt them to me, and he was convicted for his crime. That is the closest to justice that my daughters will ever get.”

I’m not sure about your date (2009) since the fire was in 1991 and he was executed in 2004.

peterpi

I’m not doubting your quote, and I know the Denver Post gives some people fits when they try to use hyperlinks, but can you cite your source?
Does it say where the ex-wife was at the time of the fire?

guest

There was no mention of where the ex-wife was at the time of the fire. But the quote was that her husband admitted “he burnt them.” That’s pretty damning testimony from her.

yes, it does because of the notoriety of your arguments that we frequently hear from . . the usual suspects. I feel its fair to suggest your predictability in response is much more sound then ours?

GregoryR

I’ve told him to google the Innocence Project and as best I can tell he hasn’t. The Masters case shows that our system is flawed. He’s lucky that he was given the death penalty because he may not have lived to see his exoneration.

peterpi

You constantly wirte that government processes are flawed, eror-prone, etc.
Now, when it comes to the death penalty, the system works flawlessly?

guest

And vice versa? You want to turn health care over to the government. Don’t you think there are going to be a lot more people die needlessly due to government run healthcare than executions?

mrfxx

Since you insist on going off topic, I suppose you don’t realize that ACA is NOT government run health care – it is government run health INSURANCE – and if you don’t think people have died because of the “for profit” nature of both the US health insurance industry as well as the health care industry, you are incredibly naive.

guest

Try reading a bit more of the comments on the DP boards. Most liberals want government to become a single payer which means they will take over healthcare (he who pays the piper calls the tune). And in fact, Obamacare didn’t take over health insurance, it just made it mandatory that people get the insurance or face a tax penalty.

For profit anything actually works better than government run in almost every endeavor where there is a way of comparing the two. If you believe
differently it is you who is the one that is naive.

toohip

you can’t read the forest for the trees, no name guest. you’re right Obamacare supported the for-profit health care industry, while at the same time protected those that for-profit health care use to be able to deny. Your mythology on capitalism vs the will of the people is what is “naive.”

guest

It’s actually see the forest for the trees, not read them. The preexisting conditions part of Obamacare is what probably will destroy it. Capitalism actually works. I’m not sure what you mean by “we the people.” You use it often and in many ways. I’m thinking what it means to you is that you just want to take what isn’t yours. It’s been done before, but it never works.

toohip

You want someone’s who bottom line is profit to decide on your health or whether you’re important enough to be kept alive. . or a gov’t of “we the people.” You can choose for yourself, but not others.

guest

I know about IPAB and about the “mortality index.” You might want to familiarize yourself with those before you go talking about “we the people.” Just a question there. You keep talking about it like it belongs to you. Am I not in we the people or only people who agree with you are part of that group?

guest

Now I see what you are driving at. The government is “we the people” so when the government decides you can’t have the hip replacement (too costly and you’re too old), it will in effect be you choosing not to have the hip replacement.

Now I have this bridge in Brooklyn, you might be interested in buying….

thor

The government runs some things well. I never said government was inefficient at all things. They run our national parks and forests well. We have the best armed forces in the world. Our interstate system helps move commerce and keeps costs down. But government sucks at running education and health care. I have no problem trusting the courts because I live biblically. Criminals are the only ones who shouldn’t trust the courts. They just might find them guilty.

peterpi

Last time I checked, our courts were secular.
You can live your life as you please, but what does living biblically have to do with the courts?

thor

Nothing, per se. But it does have to do with why I will likely not go to court.

peterpi

So, because you feel you personally will never go to court as a criminal defendant, you implicitly trust them.

GregoryR

I…see…
For your reading pleasure and consideration I offer the following:
Luke 18:9-14

peterpi

I like that passage also

thor

Thanks for reminding me that I am like the publican. In fact, I pray his prayer often because I am feeble and frail and apt to fail. I just don’t beat my breast. Also, one should never attribute something to themselves so I appreciate you see that in me. Indeed, the publican was truly living biblically, though he probably didn’t know it. And I’m sure the pharisee thought he was living according to Scripture, even though he wasn’t. Great contribution.

GregoryR

I suggest you reread that passage in light of the comment you posted and prayerfully consider who you are emulating. Those who have eyes can see.

thor

I was just messing with you. Obviously, you don’t know what I meant by living biblically. I could have said I live with the Bible as my guide. That includes recognizing my human nature and leaning on the grace and power of God to help me daily. That is far from the pharisee-like life that many live who only are religious and don’t embrace a relationship with Jesus.

GregoryR

Nonsense.
Your comment point blank said that you likely weren’t going to jail because you followed the Bible. Before that you said that living Biblically was something criminals don’t do thus you are better than they are because you do live Biblically.
That is Pharisaical. Further it is also Pharisaical to claim that many people who live a religious life don’t have a relationship with Christ. How do you know?! Can you see in to their hearts? Has Christ gifted you with the ability to see into their hearts or made you privy to their relationship with Him?
Sorry if I’m skeptical. You just assume based on your own sense of spiritual perfection that they don’t. That is the behavior of a Pharisee Thor.
Finally there are plenty of folks who don’t go to jail and yet never read the Bible or live Biblically. To believe otherwise is not only Pharisitical but also a sign of hubris.

thor

Nonsense. My comment says that I use the Bible as a guide and it helps me do the right thing. If I did the wrong thing God would let me suffer the consequences. Now, how others live their lives is not the issue. Its how I live my life. You know, the Bible doesn’t say that honesty is the best policy, the world does. The Bible, through various texts, helps us to realize that honesty is the only policy. If I’m dishonest, it is on me. But I know to be honest because of the Bible. Others know it for various other reasons. Following biblical precepts isn’t a crutch nor does it forgive me if I fail. But it does give me guidance for everyday living. If that is Pharisaical, so be it. But it only is because you say it is so and I can live with that.

peterpi

If thor says he was just playing with you, it means you caught him.

GregoryR

Yeah I know. The posts that started this subthread drip with Pharisaism. As I said those with eyes can see it.

thor

Can they? Or are you looking for something that isn’t there. You seem to be on a crusade? If I tried to apply my words to others, that would be pharisee like. Did I aim them at you? I think not. Are you feeling guilty for some reason? Just wondering.

GregoryR

They can.
In a nutshell you claimed that criminals don’t live biblically hence that’s why they are criminals. You further went on to say that because you live biblically, as you understand it, you likely will never be a criminal. The Pharisee didn’t really say anything different. Both you and he exalted yourselves as being moral.
This isn’t about me. I’m the chief of sinners and my sin is ever before me. This is about you being arrogant about being Christian and not recognizing it.

thor

This point “I’m the chief of sinners and my sin is ever before me” is why I need to live by the Word. Because I’m far from moral, I need the precepts of the Bible to guide me. Without the Bible and the guidance it gives me, I could easily be a criminal. You have your guide and I have never given thought to criticizing it. But you have been on a crusade to disparage mine. That is more pharisee-like than anything you think I wrote. But Paul, the pharisee of pharisees, met Jesus on the Road to Damascus. Jesus said “Why are you kicking against the pricks?” I would ask the same question of you.

GregoryR

The Word is the Son of God don’t confuse Him with Holy Writ.
Plenty of people live moral lives and have never opened a Bible and have done so through out the history of man. Living morally is no guarantee of salvation. Also, people have used the Bible to defend utterly immoral behavior. Slavery, particularly as practiced in this country, comes to mind.
We are, as you know, saved by grace. Grace is uncreated. We can participate in grace by being charitable etc but in the end NOTHING we do generates it. Your living Biblically doesn’t make you better than anyone else who follows a moral philosophy of some kind.
What you have been saying, aside from being Pharisaical, is akin to Pelagianism. Pelagianism holds that moral living is enough to bring salvation, that it in effect creates grace if grace evn exists at all. The fact is we must be coworkers with grace but in the end grace justifies us not some moral code.
Look back at your first two post and really read them. The impression that one gets, and I’m sure I’m not alone in this, is that you hold yourself to be better than others. After all those who are convicts clearly weren’t living Biblically, where as you, who does live biblically, aren’t a convict nor are you likely to go to jail. Those two posts together are the cause of this subthread. I have no agenda nor am I on a crusade against you. I would have reacted the same if anyone had osted similar comments.

peterpi

You’re beating your head against a wall.

thor

No. But he did hit a nerve that he had no right to hit unless he was willing to offer more than just opinion.

peterpi

You said because you live biblically that you expect you will never see the inside of a court of law (I assume you mean as a criminal defendant).
How are you so certain of that? You could be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s been known to happen.
And it’s on point to the original letters. People have been imprisoned for heinous crimes, only to be freed as much as decades later, when evidence turned up of someone else committing the crime, or evidence turned up of police incompetence, or official misconduct.
If the death penalty is expedited, and new evidence turns up that the sentence was wrong, … Oops.
But, since you feel only those rightfully charged are ones who didn’t live biblically, why should you worry? Right?

thor

1. I’m only speaking for myself. If I, or anyone else, is living by the precepts set forth in the Bible, are arrested for something we didn’t do, then we turn to God, the author and finisher of our faith. The Jews during WWII were often arrested and put to death. Why should I feel that I’m better than them. But, by living according to the guidebook, the Bible, I lessen my chances of breaking man’s laws. I for sure wouldn’t kill in cold blood. That is, after all, what we started talking about until someone took my words out of context and vainly tried to pin something on me that wasn’t there. 2. This has been a great exercise in formulating what I believe and expressing it. Thanks to you and Gregory.

thor

I only have one question: are you saying we can be saved from eternal damnation by living morally? Because I never said that. In fact, the only way to be saved from our sins and to enter into a right relationship with God is by asking Jesus to forgive us and come into our lives in the presence of the Holy Spirit. But once we do that, we need to live by the words He supplies in His guidebook, the Bible.

BTW, being Parisaical means telling others how to live, not in how you choose to live. I never once told you nor anyone else how to live their lives. That’s not my job, but you seem to have taken it on as your job, so maybe you are the pharisee here.

GregoryR

I said plainly that it is by grace that we are saved. We have to be coworkers with that grace but in the end it is God who saves us. I bring this up because you made such a big deal about how you live biblically and hence how moral you are, or think you are anyway.
There is more to living a Christian life than the Bible but still if you follow every dot of it and your hearts not right it’s a pointless endevor.

thor

A poor choice of words has lead to all this? Interesting. In the end, making an accusation of being like a pharisee is the same as being “like a pharisee,” no matter how well intentioned one is. In other words, you took on the role of the Holy Spirit. He does a much better job of convicting and convincing, don’t you think?

thor

Or, it could mean I was messing with him. He was trying to portray me as a pharisee. Its okay if he doesn’t understand what I was saying. I can live with it. Can he?

toohip

“biblical justice?” where have we heard similar references to justice according to Quran?

thor

Our set of laws may be based, in part, on biblical principles, we do not have a form of biblical justice. I’m surprised you would think that? I hope what I wrote helps.

GregoryR

It reminds me of a guy I know who complains about the government abd how it doesn’t do anything right yet only eats foods that are certified organic. Of course it seems to escape him that its the USDA that certified his food.

toohip

if you go down the road of hypocrisy of the those who hate gov’t and yet demand it serve their causes and who leech off it, we’ll run out of time. Starting with Ayn Rand.

peterpi

You constantly write that government processes are flawed, eror-prone, etc.
Now, when it comes to the death penalty, the system works flawlessly?

mrfxx

The problem with the argument (posited on Mike Rosen’s show on Wed, 3/20 by an Arapahoe County DA) that since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, there has been no PROOF that nobody has been wrongfully executed is that – as a rule – after execution, all of the prosecution’s evidence is destroyed. On the other hand, if someone is sentenced to life in prison, the evidence is normally retained (at least until the prisoner’s death), which is how a number (and I grant you it seems to be a small percent of the prison population) of those convicted have been exonerated as forensic testing (particularly of DNA) has improved.

toohip

wow, thor you really said this?? What you’re suggesting is ignorance is a value that serves exploration of this penalty. You’re pointing out that few people executed have had efforts to re-evaluate if they might be innocent, because . . “what’s the point, now?” But in modern times of DNA, where proof is more exact then “eye witness testimony” or in Tim Master’s case “violent drawings” were proof enough, we can actually prove “after the execution” that the deceased was innocent. While few efforts have been made because of this vague “futility” of not being able to right the wrong, there have been many exonerated. At least 15 since 1992, and 39 in our history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

So is your next argument going to be “who cares! – these people were bad people anyway?”

toohip

only a partial reversal of the mistake we made, because while we can give the wrongly convicted their freedom back, we can never give them back the years of freedom we took from them. Ten years for Tim Masters. And I think Masters would gladly exchange the $millions he won in his law suite for that ten years he gave to serve a corrupt system of justice. Meanwhile the Detective primarily responsible by lying, continued to be paid, was not charged by DA Ken Buck because “he didn’t feel he could get a conviction,”while they were able to get a wrong conviction Masters. We need more heavy pay outs to wrongly convicted people, more so for those executed, to force our justice system to work harder to get it right.

irisman

We keep on hearing the childish argument that nobody commits murder after they’re executed. If we execute everybody, then nobody would commit a crime. How many people commit murder while they’re serving life without parole?

primafacie

Murders happen inside prisons.

toohip

There are many valid, factual arguments against the death penalty – but none in favor of it, other than the reality about what the death penalty really is about. . one thing. .vengeance, and if you’re religious you’re familiar with the biblical quote about who’s vengeance “is mine!”

Smarter pro-death penalty proponents, like Greg Dobbs, admit the factual studies that show the death penalty is not a deterrent, but cling to their personal vengeance, but refuse to admit their human frailty why they justify murdering a murder in the name of some other undocumented, human nature cause. As human beings we don’t like to admit to our basic humanity, because we feel it’s a weakness. How many among us can honestly admit they would not want to put to death a person who viciously murdered our loved one? My hand is raised. All because we don’t want to admit our humanity. Vengeance is human nature.

toohip

The common arguments “for” the death penalty range from a variety of reasons, mostly subjective nature that suggests “it fits” the crime, or that its vaguely justified.

Some believe life in prison is too costly. Studies have shown that actually the death penalty is more expensive because as a society we want to get it right before we kill a person for killing a person. Also the special separation and isolation of death row inmates along with the appeals process add to the cost. Nathan Dunlap has sat on death row for 20 years, others longer. Studies have shown that since California reinstated the death penalty in 1987 it’s cost the state an additional $4 billion. A death row inmate costs $90,000 more per year than a life without parole inmate. And not one of the 3,500 “life without parole” convicted criminals, have been released on parole, erasing that myth.

And those that want to “correct” these death row inmates by shortening the appeals process by executing them sooner, not only suggests that we rush justice, but the fact that over 149 death row inmates have been exonerated with DNA and other evidence shows we can’t “afford” to rush to put to death people. The same with the argument that people put to death don’t recommit. They deserve justice. Does Nathan Dunlap? No, probably not but we can’t make exceptions based on . . .vengeance.

Any way you cut it, it’s about vengeance. And DA Stan Garnett, makes one of the most valid arguments outside the issue of whether the death penalty is morally right or wrong. That this penalty more than any other is more capriciously, racially, income-based, and biased in it’s application. As a modern democratic country we realize that the law must be applied universally and fairly, and this law in how it’s been applied over the centuries, historically and factually prove it’s not applied fairly.

For most of my life I have felt that the Death Penalty was a just punishment that the government could administer. My mind has changed over the last few years. I made a video that explains why I changed my mind.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.